Credentials are not imaginary. And what is required to earn those credentials provides the holders with greater access and understanding of the truth.

"Credentials" are simply provided by those who have the means of production of media, doesn't mean anything. If I had the resources to establish a news agency I could give you credentials but it wouldn't give you or me any greater understanding of anything.

__________________"Respect was invented to cover the empty place where love should be."

This is about standards and credibility. Your sources don't approach the professional standards that the media your are attacking, and they do not have anything approaching the credibility.

The problem with your argument is that there is no standard for credentialing, it is simply a matter of belonging to an organization with the means to publish and distribute material.

The counter argument is the non-traditional journalism is more credible for the fact that it is not controlled by those who simply have the means to control it. The editorial control is instead exerted via crowd-sourcing which results in a more truthful content since it is uncontrolled, not directed from the top down, with all the interests that corporate leadership is interested in protecting. Instead, those who have the most convincing argument are the ones who direct the nature of the discourse of information.

"Credentials" are simply provided by those who have the means of production of media, doesn't mean anything. If I had the resources to establish a news agency I could give you credentials but it wouldn't give you or me any greater understanding of anything.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheVulture

The problem with your argument is that there is no standard for credentialing, it is simply a matter of belonging to an organization with the means to publish and distribute material.

The counter argument is the non-traditional journalism is more credible for the fact that it is not controlled by those who simply have the means to control it. The editorial control is instead exerted via crowd-sourcing which results in a more truthful content since it is uncontrolled, not directed from the top down, with all the interests that corporate leadership is interested in protecting. Instead, those who have the most convincing argument are the ones who direct the nature of the discourse of information.

The problem with your argument is that there is no standard for credentialing, it is simply a matter of belonging to an organization with the means to publish and distribute material.

The counter argument is the non-traditional journalism is more credible for the fact that it is not controlled by those who simply have the means to control it. The editorial control is instead exerted via crowd-sourcing which results in a more truthful content since it is uncontrolled, not directed from the top down, with all the interests that corporate leadership is interested in protecting. Instead, those who have the most convincing argument are the ones who direct the nature of the discourse of information.

This argument is the same one offered by the author of self-published books that offer the "real story" of the secret world government, among others who line their hats with foil.

Yours is a distorted, inaccurate view of how journalists work. I'm not going to defend bad journalism, and there are plenty of examples of bad journalism in sports, maybe because it is, as David Letterman put it long ago, journalism's toy department. But reporters do what they do, getting paid whether people read their stories or not, because they want to tell the truth. Getting paid by how many people read your story would be a HUGE conflict of interest.

Obviously, there are people who prefer to believe the fallacies that you use in your argument. And many don't understand the difference between opinion columns and reporting fact. I will try to put my point as simply as I can.

You don't know me. You don't know who I am. If I offer a fact in this forum that I insist is true because I know it is true or because I heard it somewhere, but I won't tell you specifically, you have no reason to believe me. If I read in a newspaper a reporting of fact that has only the reporter/newspaper backing it up to be true, the only reason I have to believe that fact is my trust in the reporter/newspaper. I can consider the training that the reporter received to know when an anonymous source is supplying accurate information and that the newspaper, which couldn't exist without the public trust, has an obligation to report it accurately. But I am inclined to be skeptical because I know that information from anonymous sources is usually, overwhelmingly usually not 100 percent accurate if it cannot be backed up by sources that are identifiable.

If I read an internet blog reporting a fact, I have no reason to trust that fact if there is no source specifically identified unless I know and implicitly trust the specific blogger. Internet bloggers who benefit financially from the views to their sites have more incentive to sensationalize stories than newspapers do because people will click on the sensational, even if they don't believe it to be true because people will share links to such things. Often there is a financial incentive for bloggers to distort the truth or outright make things up that does not exist in newspapers because if they lose credibility there is no great financial sacrifice in shutting down and resurfacing under a different identity.

There is a lot of bad traditional journalism out there. There is more worse Internet journalism.

If you want credibility, back up your fact with a specific source. That applies to newspapers. That applies doubly to Internet sources that have nothing to lose by not reporting the truth.

This argument is the same one offered by the author of self-published books that offer the "real story" of the secret world government, among others who line their hats with foil.

Yours is a distorted, inaccurate view of how journalists work. I'm not going to defend bad journalism, and there are plenty of examples of bad journalism in sports, maybe because it is, as David Letterman put it long ago, journalism's toy department. But reporters do what they do, getting paid whether people read their stories or not, because they want to tell the truth. Getting paid by how many people read your story would be a HUGE conflict of interest.

Obviously, there are people who prefer to believe the fallacies that you use in your argument. And many don't understand the difference between opinion columns and reporting fact. I will try to put my point as simply as I can.

You don't know me. You don't know who I am. If I offer a fact in this forum that I insist is true because I know it is true or because I heard it somewhere, but I won't tell you specifically, you have no reason to believe me. If I read in a newspaper a reporting of fact that has only the reporter/newspaper backing it up to be true, the only reason I have to believe that fact is my trust in the reporter/newspaper. I can consider the training that the reporter received to know when an anonymous source is supplying accurate information and that the newspaper, which couldn't exist without the public trust, has an obligation to report it accurately. But I am inclined to be skeptical because I know that information from anonymous sources is usually, overwhelmingly usually not 100 percent accurate if it cannot be backed up by sources that are identifiable.

If I read an internet blog reporting a fact, I have no reason to trust that fact if there is no source specifically identified unless I know and implicitly trust the specific blogger. Internet bloggers who benefit financially from the views to their sites have more incentive to sensationalize stories than newspapers do because people will click on the sensational, even if they don't believe it to be true because people will share links to such things. Often there is a financial incentive for bloggers to distort the truth or outright make things up that does not exist in newspapers because if they lose credibility there is no great financial sacrifice in shutting down and resurfacing under a different identity.

There is a lot of bad traditional journalism out there. There is more worse Internet journalism.

If you want credibility, back up your fact with a specific source. That applies to newspapers. That applies doubly to Internet sources that have nothing to lose by not reporting the truth.

Great point. You're wrong, use an example where the system you say is at fault agrees with your point!

There's a lot I'd like to discuss on this topic, but it's all incredibly political. But you've got journalists like Glenn Greewald try to bring a bit of transparency of government and suddenly every publication in the country has every political writer put out an op ed piece that essentially lambasts him as a traitor. Regardless of your point of view on that particular topic, it's pretty damn apparent that your impressions of traditional journalism is, at best, completely flawed.

Great point. You're wrong, use an example where the system you say is at fault agrees with your point!

There's a lot I'd like to discuss on this topic, but it's all incredibly political. But you've got journalists like Glenn Greewald try to bring a bit of transparency of government and suddenly every publication in the country has every political writer put out an op ed piece that essentially lambasts him as a traitor. Regardless of your point of view on that particular topic, it's pretty damn apparent that you're impressions of traditional journalism is, at best, completely flawed.

You obviously don't want to engage in a serious discussion. I know precisely what I'm talking about because I was part of the industry. Most of my examples would be considered political in nature because I covered hard news, but I could point out that I was given -- earned -- a raise and a promotion to a bigger newspaper in my chain after I wrote stories about corruption and financial problems in a Nevada casino that subsequently ceased being a major advertiser.

I know what I am talking about. I worked in newspapers for decades working in a number of chains, in part because of the way chains were buying and selling newspapers. I guessing you were doing other things at the time.

I don't know if any of that is relevant to my point that if an Internet blogger has a financial incentive to get as many hits as he can to a posting, that he does not have an obligation to the truth, especially since people will click on outrageous things they know not to be the truth.

And it has nothing to do with my point that an Internet blog that does not specify a source for a fact is not a credible source, especially when I hold newspapers to the same standard.

You obviously don't want to engage in a serious discussion. I know precisely what I'm talking about because I was part of the industry. Most of my examples would be considered political in nature because I covered hard news, but I could point out that I was given -- earned -- a raise and a promotion to a bigger newspaper in my chain after I wrote stories about corruption and financial problems in a Nevada casino that subsequently ceased being a major advertiser.

I know what I am talking about. I worked in newspapers for decades working in a number of chains, in part because of the way chains were buying and selling newspapers. I guessing you were doing other things at the time.

I don't know if any of that is relevant to my point that if an Internet blogger has a financial incentive to get as many hits as he can to a posting, that he does not have an obligation to the truth, especially since people will click on outrageous things they know not to be the truth.

And it has nothing to do with my point that an Internet blog that does not specify a source for a fact is not a credible source, especially when I hold newspapers to the same standard.

Oh I see. Because I don't submit to your demand that I listen to the power$ that be, I don't want to have a serious conversation.

It's nice that you were able break a story like that. But a single advertiser versus policy that affects conglomerates and media moguls are not the same thing. I mean...hell, today's reality has PBS not showing documentaries because they make the Koch Brothers look bad. There's a serious lack of any sort of credibility to the media today, even in places where you'd never expect it.

Isn't the point that if a newspaper printed a report/article (not an opinion piece) that was factually inaccurate, it's unprofessional, embarrassing, and often forces a retraction, while the great majority of bloggers are not held to really any standards?

Isn't the point that if a newspaper printed a report/article (not an opinion piece) that was factually inaccurate, it's unprofessional, embarrassing, and often forces a retraction, while the great majority of bloggers are not held to really any standards?

But things are spun nowadays (Snowden, Egypt, Occupy, Iran, Syria, etc.) or even just plain ignored. Really, the only place to find the other side of issues, and in many cases simply just the truth, is through crowd-sourced news. You can find it through media networks, but there's plenty of examples of why that isn't even as trustworthy source as, say, a video blog like the young turks.

But things are spun nowadays (Snowden, Egypt, Occupy, Iran, Syria, etc.) or even just plain ignored. Really, the only place to find the other side of issues, and in many cases simply just the truth, is through crowd-sourced news. You can find it through media networks, but there's plenty of examples of why that isn't even as trustworthy source as, say, a video blog like the young turks.

Not every newspaper is the New York Post. I haven't noticed a ton of spin in the Chicago newspapers on pure news stories. Meanwhile, a majority of bloggers have "agendas," for lack of a better word. Maybe this is part of the reason print media is dying - they have to abide by journalistic standards set a hundred years ago, and people would rather have spin and opinion.

Not every newspaper is the New York Post. I haven't noticed a ton of spin in the Chicago newspapers on pure news stories. Meanwhile, a majority of bloggers have "agendas," for lack of a better word. Maybe this is part of the reason print media is dying - they have to abide by journalistic standards set a hundred years ago, and people would rather have spin and opinion.

Do you read the Tribune? It's probably the most anti-Union paper in the entire nation. Unabashedly. It's pretty embarrassing, IMO.

I think the biggest issue is the "impressions" most people have about the internet sources are a result of what people have been lead to believe by major media sources, when in actuality it's exactly what the major media has been doing for years.

I think the biggest issue is the "impressions" most people have about the internet sources are a result of what people have been lead to believe by major media sources, when in actuality it's exactly what the major media has been doing for years.

Well, when you've been taught it's the truth because it's the news, that probably plays a lot into it. And when you've been taught the internet is untrustworthy from the same people, it's hard to actually take the time to realize what the truth is.

There's a lot of bad internet, yeah. But MOST of what's major media is now corrupt in some fashion. Don't get your news from them, or at least find another view point from somewhere outside that bubble and make an educated decision on the truth for yourself.

Great point. You're wrong, use an example where the system you say is at fault agrees with your point!

There's a lot I'd like to discuss on this topic, but it's all incredibly political. But you've got journalists like Glenn Greewald try to bring a bit of transparency of government and suddenly every publication in the country has every political writer put out an op ed piece that essentially lambasts him as a traitor. Regardless of your point of view on that particular topic, it's pretty damn apparent that your impressions of traditional journalism is, at best, completely flawed.

You mean the Greenwald who is employed by the Guardian and who usually cites his sources

And Greenwald, for other reasons in his background, is as flawed and biased as they come.